758 F.2d 1535 (11th Cir. 1985), 84-7421, Vaughn v. Shannon
|Citation:||758 F.2d 1535|
|Party Name:||Waylon Rex VAUGHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary Lee SHANNON, et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||April 29, 1985|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
Julian McPhillips, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.
G.R. Trawick, Randall B. James, Montgomery, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Before HENDERSON and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and ALLGOOD [*], District Judge.
ALLGOOD, District Judge:
Appellant Vaughn complains of the grant of summary judgment by the district court in favor of the appellees Mary Lee Shannon,
et al. In the district court, Vaughn sought relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for violation of civil and constitutional rights and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985 for conspiracy to abridge plaintiff's civil rights. Our review of the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and our study of the applicable law convinces us that the district court's decision was correct and we affirm.
Appellant raises two issues on appeal. Vaughn claims that he has a property interest in his job with the Alabama Department of Mental Health, which entitles him to due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. He further claims that he is entitled to such due process by virtue of a liberty interest in his good name and reputation.
Plaintiff began his employment with the Department of Mental Health in August 1974. He rose through the ranks from a position in the Administrative Transitional Services, to Mental Health Consultant, and ultimately to Chief, Evaluation of Community Programs.
On May 3, 1983, plaintiff was informed that he was being reassigned from the position of Chief, Evaluation of Community Programs, to the position of Mental Health Consultant II. The reasons given were inadequate supervision of and communication with the staff, failure to take responsibility for decision making, minimal participation in on-site reviews of community programs, and poor analysis of deficiencies in community programs.
Following the proposed reassignment, plaintiff requested and was granted the right to a hearing on his reassignment before a duly-appointed, independent hearing officer, Mr. Frank Caskey. The hearing was conducted on July 1 and July 5, 1983. On August 1, 1983, Mr. Caskey, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence submitted to him at the hearing, entered his findings that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant plaintiff's reassignment and recommended...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP